Opportunities from multi-dimensional crop improvement and the supporting role of Near

Infrared Spectroscopy(NIRS) networks

Michael Blümmel

International Livestock Research Institute

11 November 2016

TopicsWhy pay attention to crop residues: feed supply-demand

scenarios, context, fodder markets

Impact of differences in crop residue fodder quality on livestock productivity

Exploit existing cultivar variations and targeted genetic enhancement, trade-offs

NIRS hubs as logistical support infrastructure for phenotyping in multidimensional crop improvement

Feed resource supply - demand scenarios inIndia

Feed resource Contribution to overall feed resources (%)

Greens from CRP, forests, grazing 8.0

Planted forages 15.1

Crop residues 70.6

Concentrates 6.3

Deficit: feed availability versus feed requirement (%)

Dry matter (i.e. crop residue quantity) -6

Digestible crude protein -61

Total digestible nutrients -50

(NIANP 2012; Blümmel at al. 2014)

0

5 0 0

1 0 0 0

1 5 0 0

2 0 0 0

2 5 0 0

3 0 0 0

3 5 0 0

4 0 0 0

4 5 0 0

Yield differences in milk production between the 10% most productive farmers and the remaining 90% in India when managing

comparable dairy genetics

(Derived from VDSA-India 2013 and Blümmel et al. 2016b)

A ll C o w s

L o c a l C o w s

C ro s s b re d C o w s

1 0 %

1 0 %

1 0 %

9 0 %9 0 %

9 0 %

G A P : 2 8 1 7 k g G A P : 8 6 9 k g G A P : 2 3 0 9 k g

Av

era

ge

Mil

k Y

ield

(k

g/c

ow

/ye

ar)

Crop residues are becoming more important

Kahsay Berhe (2004) study in Yarer Mountain area

Cultivated land has doubled at the expense of pasture in 30 years

Switch in source of nutrition for livestock from grazing to CR

4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0

0

1 0 0

D ry m a tte r in ta k e

D ig e s tib le e n e rg y in ta k e

P h y s ic a l P h y s io lo g ic a l

F o d d e r q u a lity : h e re D ig e s tib ility (% )

Inc

re

as

ing

In

tak

e

S e t p o in t

R e la t io n s h ip b e tw e e n fo d d e r q u a lity

a n d v o lu n ta ry fe e d in ta k e

Sorghum stover trading in Hyderabad

7

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Ju Jul Aug Sep Oc Nov0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Sorghum grain

Sorghum stover

3.4

6.5

Month of trading

Ind

ian

Ru

pee p

er

kg

Yearly mean

2004 to 2005

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Ju Jul Aug Sep Oc Nov0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Sorghum stover

Sorghum grain

6.2

10.2

Yearly mean

2008 to 2009

Month of trading

Comparisions of average cost of dry sorghum stover traded in Hyderabad and average of cost ofsorghum grain in Andhra Pradesh 2005 to 2005 and 2008 to 2009

Changes in grain: stover value in sorghum

traded in Hyderabad from

2004-5 to 2008-9

Sharma et al. 2010

Relation between digestibility and price of sorghum stover

44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 552.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

y = -4.9 + 0.17x; R2 = 0.75; P = 0.03

Stover in vitro digestibility (%)

Sto

ver

pri

ce (

IR/k

g D

M)

Premium Stover

“Raichur”

Low Cost Stover

“Local Yellow”

Blümmel and Parthasarathy, 2006

Price variations in different sorghum stover traded concomitantly in Mieso in April 2007

StoverETB/kg

Trader

ETB/kg

Farm

Sweet Sorghum (SS) 0.65 0.20

“Grain” Sorghum (GS) 0.50 0.13

Price premium 30% 54%

Source: calculated from Gebremedhin et al. 2009

Note: In India SS stover have about 3-4 units higher digestibility than GS stover

Price: quality relations in rice straw traded monthly in Kolkata from 2008 to

2009

37.0 37.5 38.0 38.5 39.0 39.5 40.0 40.5 41.0 41.5 42.02.75

3.00

3.25

3.50

3.75

4.00

4.25

Best (n=81)

Good (n=260)

Medium/low (n=273)

In vitro digestibility of rice straw (%)

Pri

ce o

f ri

ce s

traw

at

Ko

lkata

tra

ders

fro

m 2

008-2

009 (

Ind

ian

Ru

pees/k

g)

Teufel et al. (2012)

Conclusions: why pay attention to crop residues as fodder

Feed supply – demand scenarios underline key role of crop residues as feed sources

Fodder market surveys show high monetary value, narrowing crop residue-grain price ratios

Driving factor: more quality fodder required with shrinking natural resource basis

Impact of variations in crop residue fodder quality on livestock productivity

Effect of superior stover as basal diet

What magnitude of fodder quality differencematter and why

Livestock productivity levels on entirely crop residue based diets

Feed block manufacturing: supplementation,

densification

Ingredients %

Sorghum stover 50

Bran/husks/hulls 18

Oilcakes 18

Molasses 8

Grains 4

Minerals, vitamins, urea 2

Courtesy: Miracle Fodder and Feeds PVT LTD

Relation between digestibility and price of sorghum stover

44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 552.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

y = -4.9 + 0.17x; R2 = 0.75; P = 0.03

Stover in vitro digestibility (%)

Sto

ver

pri

ce (

IR/k

g D

M)

Premium Stover

“Raichur”

Low Cost Stover

“Local Yellow”

Blümmel and Parthasarathy, 2006

Comparisons of feed blocks based on lower (47%) and higher (52%) digestible sorghum stover and tested

with commercial dairy buffalo farmer in India

Block Premium Block Low

CP 17.2 % 17.1%

ME (MJ/kg) 8.46 MJ/kg 7.37 MJ/kg

DMI 19.7 kg/d 18.0 kg/d

DMI per kg LW 3.8 % 3.6 %

Milk Potential* 15.5 kg/d 9.9 kg/d

Modified from Anandan et al. (2009a)

* 21 and 14 kg/d in crossbred cattle

Live weight gains in Indian Deccan sheep fed exclusively on groundnut haulms

Groundnut cultivars Gain (g/d)

ICGV 89104 137

ICGV 9114 123

TMV 2 111

ICGS 76 76

ICGS 11 76

DRG 12 66

ICGS 44 65

ICGV 86325 83

ICGV 92020 95

ICGV 92093 109

Prob > F 0.02

Prasad et al. 2010

Live weight changes in Ethiopian Arsi-Bale sheep fed exclusively on Faba bean straws

Wegi et al., 2016

Cultivars Grain Yield Straw Yield Weight Gain (g/d)

Mosisa 4.28a 5.68a 52.2ab

Walki 4.21a 4.42c 64.6a

Degaga 4.20a 4.31c 43.2bc

Shallo 4.06a 4.98b 37.5c

Local 2.89b 3.65d 48.3bc

Conclusions: Impacts of variations in crop residue fodder quality on livestock productivity

“Intuitively” small difference in fodder quality of stover do matter: additive effect of higher

diet quality and higher intake

Informed choice of cultivar can have very substantial effect on livestock

productivity

Exploit existing cultivar variations

Phenotyping new cultivars submitted for release testing for fodder traits

• Laboratory infrastructure: stationary NIRS, mobile NIRS

Phenotyping during crop improvement for fodder traits

Stover fodder trait analysis in new sorghum cultivar release testing in India 2002 to 2008

(Blümmel et al. 2010)

Cultivar CP IVOMD ME SY

% % MJ/kg kg/ha

ICSC 93046 7.6 58.8 8.87 15 814

ICSV 91005 7.5 58.3 8.75 17 734

ICSR 196 7.9 55.2 8.19 10 386

ICSR 56 6.9 54.8 8.23 9 698

NT J2 6.6 54.8 8.19 11 675

E-36-1 7.0 53.7 8.00 9 256

ICSR 93034 6.6 53.6 8.00 10 176

A 2267-2 6.3 52.6 7.82 10 046

Seredo 6.1 52.6 7.86 8 069

ICSV 96143 6.6 51.8 7.64 6 295

WSV-387 6.5 51.7 7.64 7 911

ICSV 111 5.9 50.8 7.56 7 372

Statistical summary

LSD 0.5 1.6 0.25 1 726

h2 0.65 0.49 0.50 0.47

South-south transfer of superior dual purpose sorghum cultivars: tested 2 years x 3 locations in Ethiopia

Adie et al. 2016

Conclusions: exploit existing cultivar

variations

Livestock nutritionally-significant variations exist in all key cereal and legume crops (except perhaps wheat)

Short impact pathways, quick, relatively little investment

Modifying cultivar release criteria promising entry point

Targeted genetic enhancement

Targeted genetic enhancement towards dual and multi purpose traits

Conventional breeding (recurrent selection, hybridization)

Molecular breeding (QTL introgression, Genetic

selection)

Response in stover in vitro digestibility to 2cycles of selection of pearl millet

variety ICMV 221

Digestibility%

Grain Yieldkg/ha

Stover yieldkg/ha

Original 43.6 2 669 3 095

H1 44.5 2 596 3 460

L1 42.1 2 592 2 889

H2 45.8 2 564 3 168

L2 42.0 2 408 2 731

25

Choudhary et al (in preparation )

Effect of introgression of different stay green QTL’son stover digestibity of a Rabi

sorghum background

(Blümmel at al. 2015)

(Blümmel at al. 2015)

Dual Purpose Maize: Genomic Selection

(Babu et al. 2016)

DTMA & CAAM New DH Lines

ID IVOMD - Predicted IVOMD-ObservedDH_9_157 High IVOMD and ME 57.1DH_3_33 High IVOMD and ME 56.7DH_3_63 High IVOMD and ME 55.8DH_9_15 High IVOMD and ME 55.7DH_8_4 High IVOMD and ME 55.6DH_3_149 High IVOMD and ME 55.5DH_3_24 High IVOMD and ME 55.4DH_6_1 Low IVOMD and ME 55.4DH_3_10 High IVOMD and ME 55.0DH_3_21 High IVOMD and ME 54.9DH_3_138 High IVOMD and ME 54.6DH_3_35 High IVOMD and ME 54.5DH_3_61 High ME 54.4DH_3_83 High IVOMD and ME 54.1DH_9_165 High IVOMD 53.6DH_9_134 High IVOMD 53.6DH_9_153 High IVOMD and ME 53.5DH_3_47 High IVOMD and ME 53.4DH_3_62 High IVOMD and ME 53.4DH_3_87 High IVOMD and ME 53.4DH_3_82 High IVOMD 53.3

Predicting performance of DH maize lines for fodder quality

HTMA - GSPred.

Accuracy

IVOMD 0.44

ME 0.45

(Babu et al.2016)

4 5 .0 4 7 .5 5 0 .0 5 2 .5 5 5 .0 5 7 .5 6 0 .0

2 .8

3 .0

3 .2

3 .4

3 .6

3 .8

4 .0

4 .2

S to v e r in v itro d igestib ility (% )

Sto

ve

r p

ric

e (

IR/k

g D

M)

B re e d in g a d v a n c e in d u a l p u rp o s e m a iz e s to v e r fo d d e r q u a lity

re la t iv e to d iffe re n t s o rg h u m s to v e r tra d e d in ra in fe d

In d ia in th e p a s t d e c a d e

L o w q u a lity

s o rg h u m s to v e r

H ig h q u a lity

s o rg h u m s to v e r

M e a n IV O M D (ra n g e 5 5 .2 to 5 7 .9 % )

o f 1 1 a d v a n c e d d u a l p u rp o s e m a iz e

b re e d in g lin e s g e n e ra te d

d u r in g th e p ro je c ts

M e a n IV O M D (ra n g e 5 3 .6 to 5 6 .0 % )

o f 1 1 e x p e rim e n ta l h e a t to le ra n t d u a l

p u rp o s e m a iz e h y b r id s g e n e ra te d

d u r in g th e p ro je c ts

B lü m m e l e t a l. (2 0 1 6 a )

Conclusions: targeted genetic

enhancement

Longer term, higher investments

Great impact opportunities

Multi-trait options

New tools becoming available and more affordable

Required infrastructure for

phenotyping for crop residue fodder quality

Stationary Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS)

Mobile NIRS

Qualitative trait prediction in plant breeding based

on Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS)

Non-evasive

c. 200 samples/d

>30 traits

Physico-chemical

c. 60 000 US $

Calibration

Validation

NIRS equations sharable across

compatible instruments

At current: ILRI

34

Transfer of NIRS equations for phenotyping for fodder

quality traits: example cowpea

ILRI FOSS 5000

ILRI FOSS 6500

Methionine Prediction by NIRS

Mobile handheld NIRS

• About 40 000 US$ but pricedecreasing

• Application currently developed and validated at ILRI India and Ethiopia

Luminar 5030

Phazir

Conclusions: NIRS infrastructure for phenotyping in multidimensional crop improvement

Multi-dimensional crop improvement can be mainstreamed using NIRS

NIRS hubs minimize new investments and optimzeolder ones (South Asia, East Africa, West Africa)

Sample grinding the real bottleneck and rate limiting procedure

Mobile NIRS a way out?

Where to go from here

Develop the East African NIRS hub based on ILRI-EIAR-Private Sector collaboration

Screen released and pipeline key cereal and legumes crops for food-feed-fodder traits

Explore feed and fodder value chains around improved crop residues

CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish

livestockfish.cgiar.org

The CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish aims to increase the productivity of small-scale livestock and fish systems in sustainable ways, making meat, milk and fish more available and affordable across the developing world.

This presentation is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence.

The Program thanks all donors and organizations who globally supported its work through their contributions to the CGIAR system.